Gotta ask this! of the smart ones here.

[bluestarone]

Any thoughts on when the JUDGES will Finally allow the House to do it's job? I'm talking about making a decision on the house's RIGHT to issue subpoenas! (and force witness's to testify) We ALL know the House has a job to do, and the judges KNOW this too! So when will they ENFORCE these subpoenas?

[rampartc]

1. they will avoid the issue for as long as they can

hoping the question becomes moot.

[bluestarone]

2. My thinking too BUT

Man it's long way to SC AFTER their decisions. STALLING is the RETHUGS game here. Courts seem to be playing it as well!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Follow Up Question

How much of the Courts' stalling has to do with McConnell's court-packing? Are we starting to see the effects of that already in the federal judiciary?

[jberryhill]

9. That's a disgusting insinuation

Wait, wait, don't tell me.

You are asking whether Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is corrupt?

This is the judge you are smearing:



Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson (born September 1970) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2016, she was reportedly interviewed as one of Barack Obama's potential nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia.

On September 20, 2012, President Obama nominated Jackson to serve as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to the seat vacated by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. who retired on November 18, 2011.On January 2, 2013, her nomination was returned to the President, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate. On January 3, 2013, she was renominated to the same office. On February 14, 2013, her nomination was reported to the full Senate by voice vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was confirmed by voice vote on the legislative day of March 22, 2013. She received her commission on March 26, 2013.

----------

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16027602/committee-on-the-judiciary-of-the-us-house-of-representatives-v-mcgahn/

So sick of people who don't know anything attacking the integrity of federal judges. Putin thanks you for your work.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I'm confused

I wasn't talking about, let alone attacking, any specific judges. I'm talking about whether or not some of the Trumpian judges that McConnell has been fast-tracking into the Federal Judiciary since Trump's election are starting to gum up the works to help protect Trump. Does that make sense?

[jberryhill]

13. No, it doesn't make sense

The judge presiding over the civil action to enforce the House subpoenas is the judge identified above.

If you want to believe she is "gumming up the works", you are free to do so. It is a dumb belief.

How you would be talking about the action to enforce the House subpoenas and somehow NOT be talking about her, is something of a mystery.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. I'm sorry

I didn't read the OP close enough. I thought that this was a broader discussion. I didn't realize OP was referencing a specific Judge/Case

Mea culpa

[StarfishSaver]

16. Thank you!

[NoMoreRepugs]

3. Public pressure has to continue to grow.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. tell somebody

One way to increase public pressure is to tell somebody about an impeachable offense.

[northoftheborder]

4. Question been asked before, but not answered here...:

What compels subpoenas to be enforced after "official" impeachment is begun??? What is different from the enforcement mechanism now???

Are the judges more compelled to enforce under impeachment proceeding than they are now????

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. That's not quite how it works.

There are three ways a Congressional subpoena can be enforced: (1) through Congress' "inherent authority" to arrest and detain witnesses (this hasn't been done for many years); (2) by asking the U.S. Attorney for D.C. to bring criminal charges under a statute authorizing this to be done (but Barr oversees the U.S. Attorneys so good luck with that); and (3) by bringing a civil action in a federal district court asking the court to impose civil penalties. It is up to the committees to take one or some or all of these steps, only one of which initially involves the courts. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-hard-hitting-are-u-s-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1SC1YE

[bluestarone]

10. So am i thinking right that try #3 first THEN

Go right to #1? Because BARR will stall to the last second, the refuse!

[jberryhill]

11. #3 is in progress

...but there are people on DU who would rather slam decent federal judges than be informed about what is going on.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16027602/committee-on-the-judiciary-of-the-us-house-of-representatives-v-mcgahn/

[StarfishSaver]

17. How do you propose the House Sergeant-at-Arms go about arresting the Attorney General?

[bluestarone]

22. I do get what your saying here! BUT

And if you all say it's moving fast enough then that's what i'm looking for. I'm just thinking the inherent power could be used in OTHER witness's? That's why i ask this from the people in know TY Maybe someone could explain the pros and cons of inherent subpoena? Sounds like it would be of benefit to use, because of the RETHUG type thinking is to STALL STALL STALL!

[jberryhill]

23. When did you want Eric Holder arrested?

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988

Should the law work the same for everyone, or should it depend on who's doing the asking?

[stopdiggin]

26. dammit. would you just STOP with that logic stuff?

does it! you're officially NOT invited to the next Christmas party. Downer!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. It won't happen but if it did I'd pay to watch it!

[jberryhill]

8. This is the current scheduling order in the McGahn case, for example...

Sep 3, 2019

MINUTE ORDER ADOPTING the Parties' 28 Joint Scheduling Proposal. As discussed during the teleconference that this Court held on 9/3/2019, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 22 Motion will be treated as a Motion for Expedited Partial Summary Judgment, and that the following briefing deadlines are set: Defendant shall file his Opposition and Cross-Motion on or before 10/1/2019 at 3:00 PM; Plaintiff shall file its Reply and Cross-Motion Opposition on or before 10/16/2019; and Defendant shall file his Cross-Motion Reply on or before 10/25/2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that a Motion Hearing is set for 10/31/2019 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 9/3/2019.

----

So that one is going forward on October 31.

It's really not clear from your post what you are asking.

The McGahn case was filed August 7, the motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on August 26, and this one is moving along about as fast as these things can go:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16027602/committee-on-the-judiciary-of-the-us-house-of-representatives-v-mcgahn/

[bluestarone]

14. I guess i'm asking, Could the judge have

Gone for a faster hearing? Or could the House have used Inherent Subpoena? TY by the way!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. This schedule looks like it's moving about as fast as these things can move.

Parties can ask for expedited hearings but even so, a judge will give them some reasonable time to prepare their arguments. You can't expect this to happen tomorrow. The House hasn't used its inherent contempt power since 1934 and I doubt they'll try this method now - although Adam Schiff has suggested that they could use it to impose fines rather than arrest a witness.

[jberryhill]

20. The parties agreed to that schedule

The House has filed for a preliminary injunction, which is legalese for "I want a really fast decision up front."

Normally a party has 20 days from service of the action to file a response to a complaint. Just before that deadline, the House filed its motion for a preliminary injunction. This judge then issued an order re-setting the deadline to respond the complaint for 14 days from the decision on the preliminary injunction.

Two days later, on August 30, the parties filed a joint proposed scheduling order, to which the parties agreed, and which the court adopted.

In general, no, if the parties agree to a schedule, the judge isn't going to come up with some other schedule, and, as far as federal litigation goes, this is moving like shit through a goose.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Thanks for this. I was pretty sure they'd already started something re: McGahn

but didn't know how far along it was. A Halloween hearing sounds appropriate. I'm looking forward to reading the briefs, especially McGahn's.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Yes - this is moving very quickly

[jberryhill]

21. Just as a general background comment

Just because someone has the power to issue a subpoena does not mean that automatic compliance with the subpoena is required.

For example, attorneys in everyday civil litigation can issue subpoenas. Just because some attorney in some piece of litigation wants somebody to drop and do twenty pushups, dump all their files, or sit for 7 hours of questions, doesn't mean they are entitled to get it.

If you are on the receiving end of a subpoena then you, like anyone else, has the right to object to that subpoena for what might be all kinds of reasons why the subpoena is inappropriate, overbroad, or otherwise does not require your compliance. The person who makes that call is NOT the party which issued the subpoena.

Eric Holder, as you might remember, was found in contempt of the Republican House during his tenure. I don't recall anyone at DU calling for Eric Holder to be locked up, and that House didn't proceed any further:

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988

The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

So, no, it's not some kind of automatic "lock 'em up" affair simply because someone refuses to comply with a Congressional subpoena, nor do we want it to be one.

[bluestarone]

24. TY i do remember that

I'm just trying to understand the process further. TKS to all!